Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary’s 1990s escape from criminal charges echoes Comey email decision

Hillary’s 1990s escape from criminal charges echoes Comey email decision

Let off the hook by prosecutorial discretion: “They even drew up a draft indictment for Clinton”

http://youtu.be/EwtkorQKGFE

As I’ve previously noted, Hillary’s current email scandal echoes the ’90’s Project X scandal in which she was also involved in hiding sensitive high level email communications.  That’s not the only echo from the past:  prosecutors during the Clinton presidency weighed whether or not to charge Hillary with a crime.  They even went so far as to draw up an indictment.

The Washington Post reports:

While history remembers the 1990s probe led by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr for its pursuit of President Bill Clinton over the possibility he had lied under oath about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, internal documents from the inquiry show how close prosecutors came to filing charges at that time against Hillary Clinton. They even drew up a draft indictment for Clinton, which has never been made public.

At issue then was legal work Clinton had performed in the 1980s while an attorney at Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm on behalf of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, which was owned by a business partner of the Clintons who was later convicted of fraud in connection with bad loans made by the thrift. Clinton said that her legal work was minimal and that she was unaware of the wrongdoing at Madison Guaranty.

Prosecutors, according to WaPo, weighed the likelihood of a conviction based on Hillary’s then-status as First Lady.

The released records include a memo, written by Starr’s team, summarizing the evidence against Clinton. The prosecutors noted that she made numerous sworn statements between January 1994 and February 1996 that they thought “reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories.”

“The question, generally, is not whether the statements are inaccurate, but whether they are willfully so,” the prosecutors continued.

The records show the prosecutors had doubts about whether potential jurors would be swayed by a largely circumstantial case, particularly given Clinton’s stature as first lady.

Prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig laid out the odds for various outcomes in a memo to colleagues. He predicted a 2 percent chance that a judge would toss the case, then continued: “18 percent = Acquittal; 70 percent = Hung Jury; 10 percent = Conviction.”

“Not enough in my view,” he wrote.

In an interview, Rosenzweig said he had reflected on that 18-year-old decision while listening to Comey’s remarks last week. He said Comey’s decision was “very reminiscent” of the challenge that faced the Office of Independent Counsel team.

Comey was, in 1996, deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee, so he was involved with earlier Hillary scandals and well aware of her propensity for claiming she had no “intent” to engage in wrong-doing and for her repeated lies, lack of transparency, and assorted other stone-walling tactics, including hiding potentially incriminating evidence.

Time reports:

Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement.

Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

Pretty much what he said this week . . . twenty years later.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Oh, puh-leeze!

There has been so much suspicious activity surrounding Hillary Clinton she could make a fortune selling fertilizer until the heat death of the Universe! There is only one thing she cares about: putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. She will say and do anything to accomplish her goal of becoming Madam President for Life.

While J. Edgar had his files, Hillary Clinton likely has files on virtually everyone who can promote of hinder her progress. And, if her files are not sufficient, there are those mysterious deaths that pop up in her wake.

Bubba is a sexual predator. Hillary is a Socialist sociopath with visoins of adequacy.

This is who Hellary is. She’s always been this pathological liar and rather dim thug who REALLY hungers for money.

She’s NEVER going to be anything else, as Jonah Goldberg said years ago.

You all remember him, right? The RINO squish without any future…??? One of the legion…

Heh…!!!

As stated above
Prosecutors, according to WaPo, weighed the likelihood of a conviction based on Hillary’s then-status as First Lady.

Prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig laid out the odds for various outcomes in a memo to colleagues. He predicted a 2 percent chance that a judge would toss the case, then continued: “18 percent = Acquittal; 70 percent = Hung Jury; 10 percent = Conviction.”

I would like to highlight the 70% estimate of a hung jury. All it takes is one democrat on the jury to create a hung jury. Could the prosecution strike all the democrats from the jury pool. Not likely

    randian in reply to Joe-dallas. | July 10, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    So the prosecutors are basically saying they’re lazy bums who only take easy cases?

      Milhouse in reply to randian. | July 10, 2016 at 7:44 pm

      No, they’re saying that it’s unethical to bring a case if they don’t see a reasonable prospect of conviction.

        Daiwa in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2016 at 9:14 pm

        If that’s what they’re saying, I must disagree. Seems to me that a prosecutor has an ethical obligation to bring charges to a grand jury if a preponderance of the evidence points to guilt, unless the prosecutor’s ethical duty is purely to maximizing the efficiency of the court system . Prejudging the outcome, as a basis for not bringing charges when probability of guilt is high, does not seem ethical to me, but maybe that’s the non-lawyer me. Prosecutors make practical determinations all the time, I know, but I would not lay off the decision to let someone skate to ethics.

Burn the witch at the stake and make Comey lisht ‘er up!

The first Clinton should never have gotten to the WH but the media decided not to do their darn jobs. What is with these people who investigate, conclude that laws were broken and then let the 2 of them get away with it? What is the point of paying these gov employees? We deserve better than these spineless ninnies.

The Clintons run a straightforward organized crime family. An open Mafia, holding lots of people by the short hairs, and damn proud of it.

Hillary more than enabled Bill Clinton’s personal war on women. For a time in the White House she was in charge of investigating and harassing the women who said they were sexually abused by her husband. She knew the women were telling the truth.

Christopher Hitchens, who was a hard leftist on everything except the Iraq war, concluded that Bill Clinton was guilty of raping Juanita Broaddrick.

A chapter in Hitchens’ book NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO is titled IS THERE A RAPIST IN THE OVAL OFFICE?

Hitchens concludes the chapter this way:

“What are the chances that three socially and personally respectable women, all three of them political supporters of Mr. Clinton and none of them known to each other, would confect or invent almost identical experience which they did not desire to make public. And how possible would it be for a network of anti-Clinton rumor-mongers to create, let alone ventilate, such a coincidence? The odds that any of these ladies is lying seem to me to approach zero; their reasons for reticence are all perfectly intelligible.”

After covering up for her husband, harassing the women he abused, Hillary is just as guilty as he is.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend